CHAPTER 8.

OF THE POWER OF THE CHURCH IN ARTICLES OF FAITH. THE UNBRIDLED LICENCE OF THE PAPAL CHURCH IN DESTROYING PURITY OF DOCTRINE.

This chapter is divided into two parts,—I. The limits within which the Church ought to confine herself in matters of this
kind, sec. 1-9. II. The Roman Church convicted of having transgressed these limits, sec. 10-16.

Sections.

1. The marks and government of the Church having been considered in the seven previous chapters, the power of the Church is
now considered under three heads—viz. Doctrine, Legislation, Jurisdiction.

2. The authority and power given to Church-officers not given to themselves, but their office. This shown in the case of Moses
and the Levitical priesthood.

3. The same thing shown in the case of the Prophets.

4. Same thing shown in the case of the Apostles, and of Christ himself.

5. The Church astricted to the written Word of God. Christ the only teacher of the Church. From his lips ministers must derive
whatever they teach for the salvation of others. Various modes of divine teaching. 1. Personal revelations.

6. Second mode of teaching—viz. by the Law and the Prophets. The Prophets were in regard to doctrine, the expounders of the
Law. To these were added Historical Narratives and the Psalms.

7. Last mode of teaching by our Saviour himself manifested in the flesh. Different names given to this dispensation, to show
that we are not to dream of anything more perfect than the written word.

8. Nothing can be lawfully taught in the Church, that is not contained in the writings of the Prophets and Apostles, as dictated
by the Spirit of Christ.

9. Neither the Apostles, nor apostolic men. nor the whole Church, allowed to overstep these limits. This confirmed by passages
of Peter and Paul. Argument a fortiori.

10. The Roman tyrants have taught a different doctrine—viz. that Councils cannot err, and, therefore, may coin new dogmas.

11. Answer to the Papistical arguments for the authority of the Church. Argument, that the Church is to be led into all truth.
Answer. This promise made not only to the whole Church, but to every individual believer.

12. Answers continued.

13. Answers continued.

14. Argument, that the Church should supply the deficiency of the written word by traditions. Answer.

16. Objections founded on Infant Baptism, and the Canon of the Council of Nice, as to the consubstantiality of the Son. Answer.

1. We come now to the third division—viz. the Power of the Church, as existing either in individual bishops, or in councils, whether provincial or general. I speak only of the spiritual power
which is proper to the Church, and which consists either in doctrine, or jurisdiction, or in enacting laws. In regard to doctrine,
there are two divisions—viz. the authority of delivering dogmas, and the interpretation of them. Before we begin to treat
of each in
particular, I wish to remind the pious reader, that whatever is taught respecting
2390the power of the Church, ought to have reference to the end for which Paul declares (2 Cor. 10:8; 13:10) that it was given—namely, for edification, and not for destruction, those who use it lawfully deeming themselves
to be nothing more than servants of Christ, and, at the same time, servants of the people in Christ. Moreover, the only mode
by which ministers can edify the Church is, by studying to maintain the
authority of Christ, which cannot be unimpaired, unless that which he received of the Father is left to him—viz. to be the
only Master of the Church. For it was not said of any other but of himself alone, “Hear him” (Mt. 17:5). Ecclesiastical power, therefore, is not to be mischievously adorned, but it is to be confined within certain limits, so
as not to be drawn hither and thither at the caprice of men. For this purpose, it will be of great use to observe how it is
described by Prophets and
Apostles. For if we concede unreservedly to men all the power which they think proper to assume, it is easy to see how soon
it will degenerate into a tyranny which is altogether alien from the Church of Christ.

2. Therefore, it is here necessary to remember, that whatever authority and dignity the Holy Spirit in Scripture confers on
priests, or prophets, or apostles, or successors of Apostles, is wholly given not to men themselves, but to the ministry to
which they are appointed; or, to speak more plainly, to the word, to the ministry of which they are appointed. For were we
to go over the whole in order, we should find that they were not invested with authority to teach or
give responses, save in the name and word of the Lord. For whenever they are called to office, they are enjoined not to bring
anything of their own, but to speak by the mouth of the Lord. Nor does he bring them forward to be heard by the people, before
he has instructed them what they are to speak, lest they should speak anything but his own word. Moses, the prince of all
the prophets, was to be heard in preference to others (Exod. 3:4; Deut. 17:9); but he is previously furnished with his
orders, that he may not be able to speak at all except from the Lord. Accordingly, when the people embraced his doctrine,
they are said to have believed the Lord, and his servant Moses (Exod. 14:31). It was also provided under the severest sanctions, that the authority of the priests should not be despised (Exod. 17:9). But the Lord, at the same time, shows in what terms they were to be heard, when he says that he made his covenant with
Levi, that the law of truth might be in his mouth (Mal.
2:4-6). A little after he adds, “The priest’s lips should keep knowledge, and they should seek the law at his mouth; for he is
the messenger of the Lord of hosts.” Therefore, if the priest would be heard, let him show himself to be the messenger of
God; that is, let him faithfully deliver the commands which he has received from his Maker. When the mode of hearing, then,
is treated of, it is expressly said, “According to the sentence of the law which they shall teach thee” (Deut. 17:11).

3. The nature of the power conferred upon the prophets in general
2391is elegantly described by Ezekiel: “Son of man, I have made thee a watchman unto the house of Israel: therefore hear the word
at my mouth, and give them warning from me” (Ezek. 3:17). Is not he who is ordered to hear at the mouth of the Lord prohibited from devising anything of himself? And what is meant
by giving a warning from the Lord, but just to speak so as to be able confidently to declare that the
word which he delivers is not his own but the Lord’s? The same thing is expressed by Jeremiah in different terms, “The prophet
that hath a dream, let him tell a dream; and he that hath my word, let him speak my word faithfully” (Jer. 23:28). Surely God here declares the law to all, and it is a law which does not allow any one to teach more than he has been ordered.
He afterwards gives the name of chaff to whatever has not proceeded from himself alone. Accordingly, none of the prophets
opened
his mouth unless preceded by the word of the Lord. Hence we so often meet with the expressions, “The word of the Lord, The
burden of the Lord, Thus saith the Lord, The mouth of the Lord hath spoken it.”573573 The French adds, “Vision receue du Seigneur; Le Seigneur des armees l’a dit,”—A vision received from the Lord; The Lord of
hosts hath spoken it.
And justly, for Isaiah exclaims that his lips are unclean (Isa. 6:5); and Jeremiah confesses that he knows not how to speak because he is a child (Jer. 1:6). Could anything proceed from the unclean lips of the one, and the childish lips of the other, if they spoke their own language,
but what was unclean or childish? But their lips were holy and pure when they began to be organs of the Holy Spirit. The prophets,
after being thus strictly bound not to deliver anything but what they
received, are invested with great power and illustrious titles. For when the Lord declares, “See, I have this day set thee
over the nations, and over the kingdoms, to root out, and to pull down, and to destroy, and to throw down, to build, and to
plant,” he at the same time gives the reason, “Behold, I have put my words in thy mouth ” (Jer. 1:9, 10).

4. Now, if you look to the apostles, they are commended by many distinguished titles, as the Light of the world, and the Salt
of the earth, to be heard in Christ’s stead, whatever they bound or loosed on earth being bound or loosed in heaven (Mt. 5:13, 14; Luke 10:16; John 20:23). But they declare in their own name what the authority was which their office conferred on them—viz. if they are apostles
they must not speak their own pleasure, but faithfully deliver the
commands of him by whom they are sent. The words in which Christ defined their embassy are sufficiently clear, “Go ye, therefore,
and teach all nations, teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you” (Mt. 28:19, 20). Nay, that none might be permitted to decline this law, he received it and imposed it on himself. “My doctrine is not mine,
but his that sent me” (John 7:16). He who always was the only and eternal counsellor of the Father, who by the Father was constituted
Lord and Master of all, yet because he performed
2392the ministry of teaching, prescribed to all ministers by his example the rule which they ought to follow in teaching. The
power of the Church, therefore, is not infinite, but is subject to the word of the Lord, and, as it were, included in it.

5. But though the rule which always existed in the Church from the beginning, and ought to exist in the present day, is, that
the servants of God are only to teach what they have learned from himself, yet, according to the variety of times, they have
had different methods of learning. The mode which now exists differs very much from that of former times. First, if it is
true, as Christ says, “Neither knoweth any man the Father save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son
will reveal him” (Mt. 11:27), then those who wish to attain to the knowledge of God behoved always to be directed by that eternal wisdom. For how could
they have comprehended the mysteries of God in their mind, or declared them to others, unless by the teaching of him, to whom
alone the secrets of the Father are known? The only way, therefore, by which in ancient times holy men knew God, was by beholding
him in the Son as in a mirror. When I say this, I mean that God never manifested himself to
men by any other means than by his Son, that is, his own only wisdom, light, and truth. From this fountain Adam, Noah, Abraham,
Isaac, Jacob, and others, drew all the heavenly doctrine which they possessed.574574 116 D116 This section admirably expresses Calvin’s view concerning the centrality of Christ in divine revelation. From Creation
to Consummation, Christ is God’s only wisdom, light, and truth, the only mirror in which God has Himself as Redeemer, the
only fountain of heavenly doctrine, and the only way by which man can come to know God. Here there is no room for the concept
that Christ was completely concealed in the Old Testament, whereas He is completely
revealed in the New; nor for the idea that Old Testament saints trusted in God, whereas New Testament saints trust in Christ.
From the same fountain all the prophets also drew all the heavenly oracles which they published. For this wisdom did not always
display itself in one manner. With the patriarchs he employed secret revelations, but, at the same time, in order to confirm
these, had recourse to signs so as to make it impossible for them to doubt that it was God that spake to them. What the patriarchs
received they handed down to posterity, for God had, in depositing it with them, bound them thus to
propagate it, while their children and descendants knew by the inward teaching of God, that what they heard was of heaven
and not of earth.

6. But when God determined to give a more illustrious form to the Church, he was pleased to commit and consign his word to
writing, that the priests might there seek what they were to teach the people, and every doctrine delivered be brought to
it as a test (Mal. 2:7). Accordingly, after the promulgation of the Law, when the priests are enjoined to teach from the mouth of the Lord, the
meaning is, that they are not to teach anything extraneous or alien to that kind of
doctrine which God had summed up in the Law, while it was unlawful for them to add to it or take from it. Next followed the
prophets, by whom God published the new oracles which were added to the Law, not so new, however, but that they flowed from
the Law, and had respect to it. For in so far as regards doctrine, they were only interpreters of the Law, adding nothing
to it but predictions of future events. With this exception, all that they delivered was pure exposition of the Law. But as
the
Lord was pleased that doctrine should exist in a clearer and more ample form, the better to satisfy weak
2393consciences, he commanded the prophecies also to be committed to writing, and to be held part of his word. To these at the
same time were added historical details, which are also the composition of prophets, but dictated by the Holy Spirit;575575 117 D117 Although Calvin uses the term “dictated” in connection with this explanation of the manner in which the body of Old
Testament Scripture was formed, this should not be taken to express the mode of Inspiration, but rather to call attention
to the result of Inspiration. That this is his intention may be seen in the previous assertion that historical details “are
also the composition of prophets,” which assertion takes into account the human factor in the
process of the inscripturation of revelation.
I include the Psalms among the Prophecies, the quality which we attribute to the latter belonging also to the former. The
whole body, therefore, composed of the Law, the Prophets, the Psalms, and Histories, formed the word of the Lord to his ancient
people, and by it as a standard, priests and teachers, before the advent of Christ, were bound to test their doctrine, nor
was it lawful for them to turn aside either to the right hand or the left, because their whole office was confined
to this—to give responses to the people from the mouth of God. This is gathered from a celebrated passage of Malachi, in which
it is enjoined to remember the Law, and give heed to it until the preaching of the Gospel (Mal. 4:4). For he thus restrains men from all adventitious doctrines, and does not allow them to deviate in the least from the path
which Moses had faithfully pointed out. And the reason why David so magnificently extols the Law, and pronounces so many encomiums
on it (Ps. 19,
119), was, that the Jews might not long after any extraneous aid, all perfection being included in it.

7. But when at length the Wisdom of God was manifested in the flesh, he fully unfolded to us all that the human mind can comprehend,
or ought to think of the heavenly Father. Now, therefore, since Christ, the Sun of Righteousness, has arisen, we have the
perfect refulgence of divine truth, like the brightness of noon-day, whereas the light was previously dim. It was no ordinary
blessing which the apostle intended to publish when he wrote: “God, who at sundry times and
in divers manners, spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son”
(Heb. 1:1, 2); for he intimates, nay, openly declares, that God will not henceforth, as formerly, speak by this one and by that one, that
he will not add prophecy to prophecy, or revelation to revelation, but has so completed all the parts of teaching in the Son,
that it is to be regarded as his last and eternal testimony. For which reason, the whole period of the new
dispensation, from the time when Christ appeared to us with the preaching of his Gospel, until the day of judgment, is designated
by the last hour, the last times, the last days, that, contented with the perfection of Christ’s doctrine, we may learn to frame no new doctrine for ourselves, or admit
any one devised by others. With good cause, therefore, the Father appointed the Son our teacher, with special prerogative,
commanding that he and no human being should be heard. When he said,
“Hear him” (Mt. 17:5), he commended his office to us, in few words, indeed, but words of more weight and energy than is commonly supposed, for
it is just as if he had withdrawn us from all doctrines of man, and confined us to him alone, ordering us to seek the whole
doctrine of salvation from him alone, to depend on him alone, and cleave to him alone; in short (as the words express), to
listen only to his voice.
2394And, indeed, what can now be expected or desired from man, when the very Word of
life has appeared before us, and familiarly explained himself? Nay, every mouth should be stopped when once he has spoken,
in whom, according to the pleasure of our heavenly Father, “are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge” (Col. 2:3), and spoken as became the Wisdom of God (which is in no part defective) and the Messiah (from whom the revelation of all
things was expected) (John 4:25); in other words, has so spoken as to leave nothing to be spoken by others after him.

8. Let this then be a sure axiom—that there is no word of God to which place should be given in the Church save that which
is contained, first, in the Law and the Prophets; and, secondly, in the writings of the Apostles, and that the only due method
of teaching in the Church is according to the prescription and rule of his word. Hence also we infer that nothing else was
permitted to the apostles than was formerly permitted to the prophets—namely, to expound the ancient
Scriptures, and show that the things there delivered are fulfilled in Christ: this, however, they could not do unless from
the Lord; that is, unless the Spirit of Christ went before, and in a manner dictated words to them.576576 118 D118 This assertion that the Spirit of Christ “in a manner dictated words to them” implies at least three ideas: (1) The
guidance of the Spirit in the inspiration of Scripture extends to the very words which the apostles and prophets employed;
(2) The words of Scripture express the very thoughts which God wished expressed, so that the result of the Spirit’s inspiration
is, in regard to truth, the same as if the words had been dictated; (3) Yet the words of
Scripture were only “in a manner” dictated, since the Spirit used the faculties peculiar to the human instruments, thereby
ensuring a Scripture characterized by differences of vocabulary, syntax, grammar, literary style, historical setting, and
theological approach.
For Christ thus defined the terms of their embassy, when he commanded them to go and teach, not what they themselves had at
random fabricated, but whatsoever he had commanded (Mt. 28:20). And nothing can be plainer than his words in another passage, “Be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your Master, even Christ”
(Mt. 23:8-10). To impress this more deeply in their minds, he in the same place repeats it twice. And because from ignorance they were
unable to comprehend the things which
they had heard and learned from the lips of their Master, the Spirit of truth is promised to guide them unto all truth (John 14:26; 16:13). The restriction should be carefully attended to. The office which he assigns to the Holy Spirit is to bring to remembrance
what his own lips had previously taught.

9. Accordingly, Peter, who was perfectly instructed by his Master as to the extent of what was permitted to him, leaves nothing
more to himself or others than to dispense the doctrine delivered by God. “If any man speak, let him speak as the oracles
of God” (1 Peter 4:11); that is, not hesitatingly, as those are wont whose convictions are imperfect, but with the full confidence which becomes
a servant of God, provided with a sure message. What else is this than to
banish all the inventions of the human mind (whatever be the head which may have devised them), that the pure word of God
may be taught and learned in the Church of the faithful,—than to discard the decrees, or rather fictions of men (whatever
be their rank), that the decrees of God alone may remain steadfast? These are “the weapons of our warfare,” which “are not
carnal, but mighty through God to the pulling down of strongholds; casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth
itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ”
2395(2 Cor. 10:4, 5). Here is the supreme power with which pastors of the Church, by whatever name they are called, should be invested— namely,
to dare all boldly for the word of God, compelling all the virtue, glory, wisdom, and rank of the world to yield and obey
its majesty; to command all from the highest to the lowest, trusting to its power to build up the house of Christ and overthrow
the house of Satan; to feed the sheep and chase away the wolves; to instruct and exhort the docile, to accuse, rebuke, and
subdue the rebellious and petulant, to bind and loose; in fine, if need be, to fire and fulminate, but all in the word of
God. Although, as I have observed, there is this difference between the apostles and their successors, they were sure and
authentic amanuenses of the Holy Spirit;577577 119 D119 The expression, “sure and authentic amanuenses,” would at first glance, seem to imply that the apostles were mere
scribes and copyists, and that Inspiration should be defined as “infallible supernatural superintendence of mechanical human
reproduction of divinely communicated words.” But Calvin would have subscribed to such a “dictation theory” of Inspiration
is abundantly clear from the many relevant portions of the Institutes. (See also notes on
sections 6 and 8 of this chapter.)
and, therefore, their writings are to be regarded as the oracles of God, whereas others have no other office than to teach
what is delivered and sealed in the holy Scriptures. We conclude, therefore, that it does not now belong to faithful ministers
to coin some new doctrine, but simply to adhere to the doctrine to which all, without exception, are made subject. When I
say this, I mean to show not only what each individual, but what the whole Church, is bound to do. In regard to
individuals, Paul certainly had been appointed an apostle to the Corinthians, and yet he declares that he has no dominion
over their faith (2 Cor. 1:24). Who will now presume to arrogate a dominion to which the apostle declares that he himself was not competent? But if he
had acknowledged such licence in teaching, that every pastor could justly demand implicit faith in whatever he delivered,
he never would have laid it down as a rule to the Corinthians, that while two or three prophets spoke,
the others should judge, and that, if anything was revealed to one sitting by, the first should be silent (1 Cor. 14:29, 30). Thus he spared none, but subjected the authority of all to the censure of the word of God. But it will be said, that with
regard to the whole Church the case is different. I answer, that in another place Paul meets the objection also when he says,
that faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God (Rom. 10:17). In other words, if faith depends upon the word of
God alone, if it regards and reclines on it alone, what place is left for any word of man? He who knows what faith is can
never hesitate here, for it must possess a strength sufficient to stand intrepid and invincible against Satan, the machinations
of hell, and the whole world. This strength can be found only in the word of God. Then the reason to which we ought here to
have regard is universal: God deprives man of the power of producing any new doctrine, in order that he alone may be our
master in spiritual teaching, as he alone is true, and can neither lie nor deceive. This reason applies not less to the whole
Church than to every individual believer.

10. But if this power of the church which is here described be contrasted with that which spiritual tyrants, falsely styling
themselves bishops and religious prelates, have now for several ages exercised among the people of God, there will be no more
agreement
2396than that of Christ with Belial. It is not my intention here to unfold the manner, the unworthy manner, in which they have
used their tyranny; I will only state the doctrine which they maintain in the present
day, first, in writing, and then, by fire and sword. Taking it for granted, that a universal council is a true representation
of the Church, they set out with this principle, and, at the same time, lay it down as incontrovertible, that such councils
are under the immediate guidance of the Holy Spirit, and therefore cannot err. But as they rule councils, nay, constitute
them, they in fact claim for themselves whatever they maintain to be due to councils. Therefore, they will have our faith
to
stand and fall at their pleasure, so that whatever they have determined on either side must be firmly seated in our minds;
what they approve must be approved by us without any doubt; what they condemn we also must hold to be justly condemned. Meanwhile,
at their own caprice, and in contempt of the word of God, they coin doctrines to which they in this way demand our assent,
declaring that no man can be a Christian unless he assent to all their dogmas, affirmative as well as negative, if not
with explicit, yet with implicit faith, because it belongs to the Church to frame new articles of faith.

11. First, let us hear by what arguments they prove that this authority was given to the Church, and then we shall see how
far their allegations concerning the Church avail them. The Church, they say, has the noble promise that she will never be
deserted by Christ her spouse, but be guided by his Spirit into all truth. But of the promises which they are wont to allege,
many were given not less to private believers than to the whole Church. For although the Lord spake
to the twelve apostles, when he said, “Lo! I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world” (Mt. 28:20); and again, “I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever: even
the Spirit of truth” (John 14:16, 17), he made these promises not only to the twelve, but to each of them separately, nay, in like manner, to other disciples
whom he already had received, or was afterwards to receive. When they interpret these promises, which are replete
with consolation, in such a way as if they were not given to any particular Christian but to the whole Church together, what
else is it but to deprive Christians of the confidence which they ought thence to have derived, to animate them in their course?
I deny not that the whole body of the faithful is furnished with a manifold variety of gifts, and endued with a far larger
and richer treasure of heavenly wisdom than each Christian apart; nor do I mean that this was said of believers in
general, as implying that all possess the spirit of wisdom and knowledge in an equal degree: but we are not to give permission
to the adversaries of Christ to defend a bad cause, by wresting Scripture from its proper meaning. Omitting this, however,
I simply hold what is true—viz. that the Lord is always present with his people, and guides them by his Spirit. He is the
Spirit,
2397not of error, ignorance, falsehood, or darkness, but of sure revelation, wisdom, truth, and light, from whom they can,
without deception, learn the things which have been given to them (1 Cor. 2:12); in other words, “what is the hope of their calling, and what the riches of the glory of their inheritance in the saints”
(Eph. 1:18). But while believers, even those of them who are endued with more excellent graces, obtain in the present life only the
first-fruits, and, as it were, a foretaste of the Spirit, nothing better remains to them than, under a consciousness of their
weakness, to confine themselves
anxiously within the limits of the word of God, lest, in following their own sense too far, they forthwith stray from the
right path, being left without that Spirit, by whose teaching alone truth is discerned from falsehood. For all confess with
Paul, that “they have not yet reached the goal” (Phil. 3:12). Accordingly, they rather aim at daily progress than glory in perfection.

12. But it will be objected, that whatever is attributed in part to any of the saints, belongs in complete fulness to the
Church. Although there is some semblance of truth in this, I deny that it is true. God, indeed, measures out the gifts of
his Spirit to each of the members, so that nothing necessary to the whole body is wanting, since the gifts are bestowed for
the common advantage. The riches of the Church, however, are always of such a nature, that much is
wanting to that supreme perfection of which our opponents boast. Still the Church is not left destitute in any part, but always
has as much as is sufficient, for the Lord knows what her necessities require. But to keep her in humility and pious modesty,
he bestows no more on her than he knows to be expedient. I am aware, it is usual here to object, that Christ hath cleansed
the Church “with the washing of water by the word: that he might present it to himself a glorious Church, not having spot
or wrinkle” (Eph. 5:26, 27), and that it is therefore called the “pillar and ground of the truth” (1 Tim. 3:15). But the former passage rather shows what Christ daily performs in it, than what he has already perfected. For if he daily
sanctifies all his people, purifies, refines them, and wipes away their stains, it is certain that they have still some spots
and wrinkles, and that their sanctification is in some measure defective. How vain and fabulous is it to suppose that the
Church, all
whose members are somewhat spotted and impure, is completely holy and spotless in every part? It is true, therefore, that
the Church is sanctified by Christ, but here the commencement of her sanctification only is seen; the end and entire completion
will be effected when Christ, the Holy of holies, shall truly and completely fill her with his holiness. It is true also,
that her stains and wrinkles have been effaced, but so that the process is continued every day, until Christ at his advent
will
entirely remove every remaining defect. For unless we admit this, we shall be constrained to hold with the Pelagians, that
the righteousness of believers is perfected in this life: like the Cathari and Donatists we shall tolerate no infirmity in
2398the Church.578578 The French adds, “Or, nos adversaires mesmes tiennent tous ceux-la pour heretiques.”—Now, our opponents themselves regard
all those as heretics.
The other passage, as we have elsewhere seen (chap. 1 sec. 10), has a very different meaning from what they put upon it. For
when Paul instructed Timothy, and trained him to the office of a true bishop, he says, he did it in order that he might learn
how to behave himself in the Church of God. And to make him devote himself to the work with greater seriousness and zeal,
he adds, that the Church is the pillar and ground of the truth. And what else do these words mean, than just that
the truth of God is preserved in the Church, and preserved by the instrumentality of preaching; as he elsewhere says, that
Christ “gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;” “that we henceforth
be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning
craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive; but, speaking the truth in love, may grow up into him in all things, who
is the
head, even Christ”? (Eph. 4:11, 14, 15) The reason, therefore, why the truth, instead of being extinguished in the world, remains unimpaired, is, because he has
the Church as a faithful guardian, by whose aid and ministry it is maintained. But if this guardianship consists in the ministry
of the Prophets and Apostles, it follows, that the whole depends upon this—viz. that the word of the Lord is faithfully preserved
and maintained in purity.

13. And that my readers may the better understand the hinge on which the question chiefly turns, I will briefly explain what
our opponents demand, and what we resist. When they deny that the Church can err, their end and meaning are to this effect:
Since the Church is governed by the Spirit of God, she can walk safely without the word; in whatever direction she moves,
she cannot think or speak anything but the truth, and hence, if she determines anything without or
beside the word of God, it must be regarded in no other light than if it were a divine oracle. If we grant the first point—viz.
that the Church cannot err in things necessary to salvation—our meaning is, that she cannot err, because she has altogether
discarded her own wisdom, and submits to the teaching of the Holy Spirit through the word of God. Here then is the difference.
They place the authority of the Church without the word of God; we annex it to the word, and allow it not to be
separated from it. And is it strange if the spouse and pupil of Christ is so subject to her lord and master as to hang carefully
and constantly on his lips? In every well-ordered house the wife obeys the command of her husband, in every well-regulated
school the doctrine of the master only is listened to. Wherefore, let not the Church be wise in herself, nor think any thing
of herself, but let her consider her wisdom terminated when he ceases to speak. In this way she will distrust all the
inventions of her own reason; and when she leans on the word of God, will not waver in diffidence or hesitation but rest in
full assurance and unwavering
2399constancy. Trusting to the liberal promises which she has received, she will have the means of nobly maintaining her faith,
never doubting that the Holy Spirit is always present with her to be the perfect guide of her path. At the same time, she
will remember the use which God wishes to be derived from his Spirit. “When he, the Spirit of
truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth” (John 16:13). How? “He shall bring to your remembrance all things whatsoever I have said unto you.” He declares, therefore, that nothing
more is to be expected of his Spirit than to enlighten our minds to perceive the truth of his doctrine. Hence Chrysostom most
shrewdly observes, “Many boast of the Holy Spirit, but with those who speak their own it is a false pretence. As Christ declared
that he spoke not of himself (John 12:50; 14:10), because
he spoke according to the Law and the Prophets; so, if anything contrary to the Gospel is obtruded under the name of the Holy
Spirit, let us not believe it. For as Christ is the fulfilment of the Law and the Prophets, so is the Spirit the fulfilment
of the Gospel” (Chrysost. Serm. de Sancto et Adorando Spiritu.) Thus far Chrysostom. We may now easily infer how erroneously
our opponents act in vaunting of the Holy Spirit, for no other end than to give the credit of his name to strange doctrines,
extraneous to the word of God, whereas he himself desires to be inseparably connected with the word of God; and Christ declares
the same thing of him, when he promises him to the Church. And so indeed it is. The soberness which our Lord once prescribed
to his Church, he wishes to be perpetually observed. He forbade that anything should be added to his word, and that anything
should be taken from it. This is the inviolable decree of God and the Holy Spirit, a decree which our opponents endeavour
to annul when they pretend that the Church is guided by the Spirit without the word.

14. Here again they mutter that the Church behoved to add something to the writings of the apostles, or that the apostles
themselves behoved orally to supply what they had less clearly taught, since Christ said to them, “I have yet many things
to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now” (John 16:12), and that these are the points which have been received, without writing, merely by use and custom. But what effrontery
is this? The disciples, I admit, were ignorant and
almost indocile when our Lord thus addressed them, but were they still in this condition when they committed his doctrine
to writing, so as afterwards to be under the necessity of supplying orally that which, through ignorance, they had omitted
to write? If they were guided by the Spirit of truth unto all truth when they published their writings, what prevented them
from embracing a full knowledge of the Gospel, and consigning it therein? But let us grant them what they ask, provided they
point
out the things which behoved to be revealed without writing. Should they presume to attempt this, I will address, them in
the words of Augustine, “When the Lord is silent, who of us may say, this is, or that is? or if we
2400should presume to say it, how do we prove it?” (August. in Joann. 96) But why do I contend superfluously? Every child knows
that in the writings of the apostles, which these men represent as mutilated and incomplete, is contained the result of that
revelation which the Lord
then promised to them.

15. What, say they, did not Christ declare that nothing which the Church teaches and decrees can be gainsayed, when he enjoined
that every one who presumes to contradict should be regarded as a heathen man and a publican? (Mt. 18:17.) First, there is here no mention of doctrine, but her authority to censure, for correction is asserted, in order that none
who had been admonished or reprimanded might oppose her judgment. But to say nothing of this, it is very strange
that those men are so lost to all sense of shame, that they hesitate not to plume themselves on this declaration. For what,
pray, will they make of it, but just that the consent of the Church, a consent never given but to the word of God, is not
to be despised? The Church is to be heard, say they. Who denies this? since she decides nothing but according to the word
of God. If they demand more than this, let them know that the words of Christ give them no countenance. I ought not to seem
contentious when I so vehemently insist that we cannot concede to the Church any new doctrine; in other words, allow her to
teach and oracularly deliver more than the Lord has revealed in his word. Men of sense see how great the danger is if so much
authority is once conceded to men. They see also how wide a door is opened for the jeers and cavils of the ungodly, if we
admit that Christians are to receive the opinions of men as if they were oracles. We may add, that our Saviour, speaking
according to the circumstances of his times, gave the name of Church to the Sanhedrim, that the disciples might learn afterwards
to revere the sacred meetings of the Church. Hence it would follow, that single cities and districts would have equal liberty
in coining dogmas.

16. The examples which they bring do not avail them. They say that pædobaptism proceeds not so much on a plain command of
Scripture, as on a decree of the Church. It would be a miserable asylum if, in defence of pædobaptism, we were obliged to
betake ourselves to the bare authority of the Church; but it will be made plain enough elsewhere (chap. 16) that it is far
otherwise. In like manner, when they object that we nowhere find in the Scriptures what was declared in
the Council of Nice—viz. that the Son is consubstantial with the Father (see August. Ep. 178)—they do a grievous injustice to the Fathers, as if they had rashly condemned Arius for not swearing to their words, though
professing the whole of that doctrine which is contained in the writings of the Apostles and Prophets. I admit that the expression
does not exist in Scripture, but seeing it is there so often declared that there is one God, and Christ is so often called
true and eternal God, one
with the Father, what do the Nicene Fathers do when they affirm that he is of one essence, than simply
2401declare the genuine meaning of Scripture? Theodoret relates that Constantine, in opening their meeting, spoke as follows:
“In the discussion of divine matters, the doctrine of the Holy Spirit stands recorded. The Gospels and apostolical writings,
with the oracles of the prophets, fully show us the meaning of the Deity. Therefore, laying aside discord, let us take the
exposition of questions
from the words of the Spirit” (Theodoret. Hist. Eccles. Lib. 1 c. 5). There was none who opposed this sound advice; none who
objected that the Church could add something of her own, that the Spirit did not reveal all things to the apostles, or at
least that they did not deliver them to posterity, and so forth. If the point on which our opponents insist is true, Constantine,
first, was in error in robbing the Church of her power; and, secondly, when none of the bishops rose to vindicate it,
their silence was a kind of perfidy, and made them traitors to Ecclesiastical law. But since Theodoret relates that they readily
embraced what the Emperor said, it is evident that this new dogma was then wholly unknown.

574 116 D116 This section admirably expresses Calvin’s view concerning the centrality of Christ in divine revelation. From Creation
to Consummation, Christ is God’s only wisdom, light, and truth, the only mirror in which God has Himself as Redeemer, the
only fountain of heavenly doctrine, and the only way by which man can come to know God. Here there is no room for the concept
that Christ was completely concealed in the Old Testament, whereas He is completely
revealed in the New; nor for the idea that Old Testament saints trusted in God, whereas New Testament saints trust in Christ.

575 117 D117 Although Calvin uses the term “dictated” in connection with this explanation of the manner in which the body of Old
Testament Scripture was formed, this should not be taken to express the mode of Inspiration, but rather to call attention
to the result of Inspiration. That this is his intention may be seen in the previous assertion that historical details “are
also the composition of prophets,” which assertion takes into account the human factor in the
process of the inscripturation of revelation.

576 118 D118 This assertion that the Spirit of Christ “in a manner dictated words to them” implies at least three ideas: (1) The
guidance of the Spirit in the inspiration of Scripture extends to the very words which the apostles and prophets employed;
(2) The words of Scripture express the very thoughts which God wished expressed, so that the result of the Spirit’s inspiration
is, in regard to truth, the same as if the words had been dictated; (3) Yet the words of
Scripture were only “in a manner” dictated, since the Spirit used the faculties peculiar to the human instruments, thereby
ensuring a Scripture characterized by differences of vocabulary, syntax, grammar, literary style, historical setting, and
theological approach.

577 119 D119 The expression, “sure and authentic amanuenses,” would at first glance, seem to imply that the apostles were mere
scribes and copyists, and that Inspiration should be defined as “infallible supernatural superintendence of mechanical human
reproduction of divinely communicated words.” But Calvin would have subscribed to such a “dictation theory” of Inspiration
is abundantly clear from the many relevant portions of the Institutes. (See also notes on
sections 6 and 8 of this chapter.)